Nor now in Christiandom, though largely the same.
(By this tripartate division, David and Solomon were considered Prophets, so Samuel and Psalms were considered among the books of the Prophets.)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures , (Luke 24:44-45)
It’s not that Catholics “added” books to the Canon; it’s that Catholics never infallibly defined a canon until the Council of Trent.
They added as infallible books that aforetime and during Trent were yet subject to scholarly dispute. You last statement, while true, many RCs find unsettling, as they see Luther as dissenting from an indisputable canon, as well a man Prots follow as a pope (which would make them rather Catholic).
Thus, there was no distinction between “oral tradition” and “scripture.” What was “scripture” was what was accepted by tradition as doctrinally correct.
Separating what was wholly inspired and authoritative, which Christ thus opened the eyes of the disciples to (which were more than the 11) from that which was not.
And as was the case before there was a church, both men and writings of God came to be est. as being so essentially due to there unique and enduring Heavenly qualities (Ps. 19; 119) and attestation, which the magisterium is to confirm, but which are such regardless. Thus the church began in dissent, with the common people recognizing what the magisterium did not/would not. (Mk. 11:27-33)
This notion can still discerned within the ambiguities of the Council of Trent: The canon is defined as those which contain unique doctrine which must be defended. “Greek Esdras” is left in a limbo: unnecessary, since it contains virtually nothing unique, but not condemned. Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees, commonly read at mass by the Orthodox, but lacking among Western masses, go unmentioned.
Yes, unlike as against Prots, this disparity never seems to be an issue, and the Byzantine Rite is not so technical as the West. And yet there is discussion among Catholics as whether Trent infallibly closed the canon.
As local Traditions diverged, Scripture emerged as a test of what comprised authentic Tradition: nothing contrary to Scripture could be regarded as authentic.
RC Tradition cannot contradict Scripture as Rome alone is authoritative on what a contradiction is. Yet even o the EO "opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” - Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135
Thus, we come to the authority of the Pope: where a doctrine has gone without contradiction
What teaching, or part thereof (Bulls, encyclicals, etc.) constitutes an infallible teaching is itself a matter of interpretation (as is often their meaning to some degree), with some seeing an extensive list, but usually it is a very small list. Yet "without contradiction" does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible.
Nor on our end is he necessarily consistent with it. Its veracity rests upon the premise of the assured infalliblity of Rome. As Keating states as regards there strictly being zero proof from Scripture for it, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption].
Thus, it’s not a matter of a Pope lacking the free will to affirm a false doctrine; it’s a matter of him lacking the authority to do so.
No one has authority to teach false doctrine, with Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced .
God has affirmed that the Pope cannot with proper authority infallibly declare what is false (”Whatever you declare bound on Earth is bound in Heaven.”).
That this translates into Rome's magisterial perpetual formulaic assured infallibility is an extrapolative interpretation, and which presumes this is necessary for the binding and loosing we see in Scripture, and by which Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
In a sense, then, the issue of whether a tradition carries authority, the answer is that it is a matter for the Church to decide as a whole (as in an ecumenical council that is approved by the Pope), or for the Pope to discern has been decided.
And as the latter's authority is unlimited, incalculable, and can punish every one, allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice, being subject to no one, and cannot be deposed, then it is the height of individual autocracy and interpretation.
>> then it is the height of individual autocracy and interpretation. <<
Not at all! Because (1) the Papacy was ordained by Christ, (2) the powers of infallibility are so narrowly circumscribed, and (3) the pope cannot contradict Tradition, nor innovate, but can only discern what tradition has always been. (Which is not to say that he cannot enunciate it more clearly; see below.)
>> Yet “without contradiction” does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible. <<
That’s correct; were it not for controversies over the meaning of scripture, there would be no reason for reserving the right to issue infallible proclamations about moral doctrine (which is the only kind of infallible proclamations a pope can make).
>> Yet even o the EO “opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” <<
The EO assent to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, and remained sinless for her entire lifetime; the rejection of the Immaculate Conception by the EO is primarily because it is expressed in terms of original sin, an Augustinian formulation which the EO have not assented to. Also, the EO assent to the notion of a purification in the afterlife; purgatory is simply a Latin word, and there are non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO find troublesome.
>> They added as infallible books that aforetime and during Trent were yet subject to scholarly dispute. <<
Not in the way Protestants understand them to have been disputed. The earliest Church fathers referenced them authoritatively; the disputes (including St. Jerome’s prefaces) dealt chiefly with the topic of using them to convert Jews, who accepted most of the Old Testament and therefore, it was believed, should be able to recognize the New Testament as its fulfillment, but who rejected the controverted books.
>> And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures , (Luke 24:44-45) <<
Actually, this is a great example of the varying canons: no mention is made of the Khetuvim (”scrolls”), which include what the Protestants call the “apocrypha”, but also Job, Chronicles, Esther, Ezra (-Nehemiah), Daniel, Ruth, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Lamentations. New Testament citations of these books are exceedingly rare. Rather, Jesus refers only to “in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.” (He almost seems to be clarifying the inclusion of the Psalms, since some Jews considered them in the Khetuvim, while others considered them in the Prophets.)
>> Nor now in Christiandom, though largely the same. <<
The distinctions among Christians are relatively minor compared to among the Jews, where some Jews considered only 5 books to be scripture, while other Jews considered 22 books to be scripture (and 48 to 55, the way we now count them.